John and all,
John B. Reynolds wrote:
> Jay Fenello wrote:
> > >> Non-commercial domain name holders
> > >> Iperdome's clients are almost exclusively
> > >> non-commercial domain name holders.
> > >
> > >But Iperdome itself is a commercial entity. On that basis, it is clearly
> > >ineligible.
> >
> >
> > Well, that's one interpretation.
> >
>
> It's the only interpretation under which a non-commercial constituency is
> meaningful. If one were to open it to commercial entities on the basis that
> they have non-commercial entities and individuals as customers, it would
> quickly become dominated by ISPs and registries rather than those for whom
> the constituency is intended to provide representation.
Of course you are likely correct in your assumption, but it is not known
to a certainty, is it? And hence this too also reinforces Jays point as well.
And in doing so emphasizes the fact that having pre-defined or structurally
defined constituencies as a part of the DNSO, in by nature divisive and
a form of gerrymandering.
>
>
> > Both of your comments, of course, highlight
> > the importance of "drawing lines." Thank
> > you for reinforcing my point.
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
